<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The fines could total $850 million.</div>

<div>Airlines' failure to reach a settlement with EU regulators in the case could cause cost them more.EU trustbusters are said to be close to reimposing fines up to $850 million on several airlines for operating a cargo cartel that had been <a>overturned by a European court 15 months ago</a>.The European Union fined 11 carriers 790 million euros ($840 million) in November 2010 for colluding on fuel and security surcharges between 2000 and 2006 following a four-year investigation that was carried out alongside a probe by US antitrust authorities.The EU General Court annulled the fines in December 2015, following an appeal...

Airlines' failure to reach a settlement with EU regulators in the case could cause cost them more. EU trustbusters are said to be close to reimposing fines up to $850 million on several airlines for operating a cargo cartel that had been overturned by a European court 15 months ago . The European Union fined 11 carriers 790 million euros ($840 million) in November 2010 for colluding on fuel and security surcharges between 2000 and 2006 following a four-year investigation that was carried out alongside a probe by US antitrust authorities. The EU General Court annulled the fines in December 2015, following an appeal by eight carriers, saying the competition regulators had employed “contradictory” arguments. The European Commission, the EU’s executive, arguing the court ruling was essentially procedural, sought to strike a deal with the carriers to settle the case a few weeks ago but failed to reach agreement. As a result, the European competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, is said to be close to reimposing the fines on the carriers, some of which have already been successfully sued by their customers. Air France and KLM, which merged in 2004, received the largest combined fine of 310.1 million euros, followed by British Airways, which was hit with a 104-million-euro penalty. Singapore Airlines, Cargolux, SAS, Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Air Canada, Qantas, LAN Chile, and Martinair were also found guilty of price fixing, taking the total fines to 799.5 million euros. Lufthansa was found guilty of price fixing, but escaped fines because it alerted the Commission to the cartel and cooperated in its investigation. Its subsidiary Swiss also was granted immunity. The United States imposed fines of more than $1.6 billion on 18 airlines for price fixing in a parallel investigation. The airlines have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in damages claims by customers since the European Union found them guilty of price fixing. Contact Bruce Barnard at brucebarnard47@hotmail.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

EU poised to reimpose air cargo cartel fines

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The US maritime regulator said the ocean carrier will also refund third parties that paid detention bills and will limit future billing to shippers and consignees. </div>

The US maritime regulator said the ocean carrier will also refund third parties that paid detention bills and will limit future billing to shippers and consignees.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk has reached an agreement with the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to pay $1.9 million in civil penalties over the ocean carrier’s practices for billing for container detention. The agency said in a statement Tuesday it had reached a compromise agreement with Maersk related to allegations of it charging detention “against third parties who had not consented to be bound by the terms of Maersk’s bills of lading, service contracts, or tariffs.” Maersk paid the penalty, along with refunds to the third parties, but did not admit to violations of the US Shipping Act or FMC rules, the agency said. Maersk also agreed to end the practice and will limit detention billing to shippers, consignees, and others with a “beneficial interest” in the cargo as defined under the Shipping Act. While it was not disclosed when the billing practices took place, the FMC issued rules in 2024 that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stakeholders-sorting-out-per-diem-bills-under-new-fmc-rules-5192186">outlined how truckers or other third parties involved in ocean freight transportation should not be billed for detention and demurrage</a>. The move followed numerous complaints from drayage carriers about being forced to pay per diem bills at marine terminals before being allowed to retrieve containers or face a lockout for unpaid charges. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Maersk has reached an agreement with the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to pay $1.9 million in civil penalties over the ocean carrier’s practices for billing for container detention. The agency said in a statement Tuesday it had reached a compromise agreement with Maersk related to allegations of it charging detention “against third parties who had not consented to be bound by the terms of Maersk’s bills of lading, service contracts, or tariffs.” Maersk paid the penalty, along with refunds to the third parties, but did not admit to violations of the US Shipping Act or FMC rules, the agency said. Maersk also agreed to end the practice and will limit detention billing to shippers, consignees, and others with a “beneficial interest” in the cargo as defined under the Shipping Act. While it was not disclosed when the billing practices took place, the FMC issued rules in 2024 that outlined how truckers or other third parties involved in ocean freight transportation should not be billed for detention and demurrage . The move followed numerous complaints from drayage carriers about being forced to pay per diem bills at marine terminals before being allowed to retrieve containers or face a lockout for unpaid charges. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com.

Container lines

Maritime

FMC collects civil penalty from Maersk on detention bills

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TMV said the new funding will seed companies that want to apply new technologies to the maritime industry, shipbuilding and related infrastructure. </div>

TMV said the new funding will seed companies that want to apply new technologies to the maritime industry, shipbuilding and related infrastructure.

<div class="phx-topic">A venture capital firm has launched a $200 million logistics and maritime fund anchored by warehousing giant Prologis and shipping industry certifier American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) that is designed for early-stage funding of emerging technology, including artificial intelligence, robotics and clean energy, aimed at the maritime industry. TMV said in a statement Tuesday that its TMV Maritime and Logistics Fund raised the money from Prologis Ventures and ABS with the goal of “rebuilding the core infrastructure of maritime, shipbuilding, ports, and intermodal logistics.” TMV was founded in 2016 by Marina Hadjipateras, who had previously served as a business development executive for gas tanker carrier Dorian LPG, and Soraya Durabi, who also founded venture capital forum Transact Global. It currently has $230 million in investments spanning more than 50 companies in the maritime, technology and health industries. TMV said the new funding looks to capitalize on efforts by the US and other countries to revitalize their shipbuilding industries and develop better infrastructure for the maritime industry. TMV noted the US government investment in shipbuilding will go from $47.3 billion in fiscal 2026 to $65.8 billion in fiscal 2027. TMV will provide early-stage funding to companies involved in developing autonomous systems, robotics, artificial intelligence applications, dual-use technologies and new energy systems for the maritime industry. While the fund targets the broader maritime industry, including defense and military shipping, it will also look at how to apply those technologies to container shipping and related logistics. TMV said it also has an advisory network that includes senior leaders from Maersk, terminal operator Fenix Marine Services, US intermodal depot operator ConGlobal and freight forwarder Flexport. The TMV fund mirrors similar efforts that ocean carriers have made to bring new technologies to a hidebound industry. Since 2021, Maersk’s venture capital arm, Maersk Growth, has invested about $835 million in 38 companies, according to private company data from S&amp;P Capital IQ, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. CMA CGM Ventures has made seven investments totaling $1.8 billion, according to Capital IQ. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

A venture capital firm has launched a $200 million logistics and maritime fund anchored by warehousing giant Prologis and shipping industry certifier American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) that is designed for early-stage funding of emerging technology, including artificial intelligence, robotics and clean energy, aimed at the maritime industry. TMV said in a statement Tuesday that its TMV Maritime and Logistics Fund raised the money from Prologis Ventures and ABS with the goal of “rebuilding the core infrastructure of maritime, shipbuilding, ports, and intermodal logistics.” TMV was founded in 2016 by Marina Hadjipateras, who had previously served as a business development executive for gas tanker carrier Dorian LPG, and Soraya Durabi, who also founded venture capital forum Transact Global. It currently has $230 million in investments spanning more than 50 companies in the maritime, technology and health industries. TMV said the new funding looks to capitalize on efforts by the US and other countries to revitalize their shipbuilding industries and develop better infrastructure for the maritime industry. TMV noted the US government investment in shipbuilding will go from $47.3 billion in fiscal 2026 to $65.8 billion in fiscal 2027. TMV will provide early-stage funding to companies involved in developing autonomous systems, robotics, artificial intelligence applications, dual-use technologies and new energy systems for the maritime industry. While the fund targets the broader maritime industry, including defense and military shipping, it will also look at how to apply those technologies to container shipping and related logistics. TMV said it also has an advisory network that includes senior leaders from Maersk, terminal operator Fenix Marine Services, US intermodal depot operator ConGlobal and freight forwarder Flexport. The TMV fund mirrors similar efforts that ocean carriers have made to bring new technologies to a hidebound industry. Since 2021, Maersk’s venture capital arm, Maersk Growth, has invested about $835 million in 38 companies, according to private company data from S&P Capital IQ, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. CMA CGM Ventures has made seven investments totaling $1.8 billion, according to Capital IQ. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Logistics Technology News

Supply chain

Early-stage tech fund targets maritime industry with $200 million

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The move is likely to raise costs for forwarders and carriers as they devote more resources to ensure compliance with rate filing procedures, and it could hasten a wider shakeup in China’s logistics sector.</div>

The move is likely to raise costs for forwarders and carriers as they devote more resources to ensure compliance with rate filing procedures, and it could hasten a wider shakeup in China’s logistics sector.

<div class="phx-topic">Freight forwarders and ocean carriers are facing a widening crackdown by China's Transport Ministry and provincial authorities over the filing of ocean rate data, ostensibly as part of an effort to protect shippers from unclear pricing strategies, forwarders say. The move is likely to raise costs for forwarders and carriers as they devote more resources to ensure compliance with rate filing procedures. And it could hasten a wider shakeup in China's logistics sector, with increased consolidation and the demise of smaller, less-compliant operators, the forwarders said. The crackdown by Chinese authorities comes after nine carriers and seven non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) received fines or warning letters after Transport Ministry officials found discrepancies in rate data filed for international shipments at three gateway ports late last year. “Since the government has emphasized (that) enterprises must improve internal rate filing work systems and institutionalize accountability, with responsibility assigned to specific personnel, it may cost more for internal compliance costs, (and) force both large shipping lines and smaller forwarders to be more transparent," Cliff Xu, regional director of Greater China for the forwarder Rhenus Air &amp; Ocean, told the Journal of Commerce. “This would reduce the ability of non-compliant operators to undercut compliant competitors through opaque pricing strategies,” he added. “This may accelerate industry consolidation, with smaller and less-compliant operators struggling to survive.” Inspections last year focused on Guangzhou, Ningbo, and Qingdao. “We anticipate further expansion nationwide,” Xu said. “The logical next steps would include other major trade gateways such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Tianjin in future enforcement rounds. “The government has explicitly stated that it will increase the intensity of inspections on enterprises regarding the implementation of filed freight rates, and that both the central ministry and its authorized provincial transportation authorities will carry out these enforcement actions,” Xu added. Ocean Network Express (ONE), Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Evergreen Marine (Asia), and Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) were among the carriers that received "administrative punishment" following the inspections between August and November last year. ONE said it was penalized due to a “filing inaccuracy in mid-2025.” “ONE has since addressed the relevant findings through appropriate follow-up and corrective actions,” a spokesperson for the carrier told the Journal of Commerce, not providing further details. “Our current operations remain unaffected, and we remain committed to full regulatory compliance.” Hapag-Lloyd declined to comment. “Please understand that we cannot comment on ongoing proceedings as a general matter,” a spokesperson for the carrier said. The seven forwarders that received “administrative punishment,” which can also include license suspension, include Huilida International Freight Forwarding (Guangzhou), the Qingdao branch of Xuda International Freight Forwarding (Shanghai), and Ningbo Port Southeast Logistics Group, according to a Transport Ministry statement on May 12. <h3>‘Significant increase’ in scrutiny </h3>The Transport Ministry made it mandatory for carriers and forwarders to file rate data and information to the Shanghai Shipping Exchange, as the ministry’s agent, in 2013. But forwarder FIBS Logistics said freight rate filing enforcement “was considered a bit of a toothless paper tiger” until 2024 when Shanghai’s municipal transport commission carried out a two-week inspection blitz on freight rate filing procedures. Those checks included copies of bills of lading, freight lists, bank accounts, invoices, and “financial accounting vouchers,” according to the notice issued by the commission shortly before the inspection regime started. It was at that time that FIBS put a dedicated person in charge of the local filings for all China contracts, a spokesperson for the company told the Journal of Commerce. “We have never actually been audited, nor did we really hear much about other forwarders getting audited,” the spokesperson said. “I guess only forwarders who never or just rarely update the filing system will be audited.” Xu from Rhenus Logistics said the company has seen “a significant increase in enforcement and systematic scrutiny” since 2024. “The authorities have moved beyond simple filing mandates to vigorously enforce compliance with filed rates,” he said. “This represents a clear step-change in regulatory oversight. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Freight forwarders and ocean carriers are facing a widening crackdown by China's Transport Ministry and provincial authorities over the filing of ocean rate data, ostensibly as part of an effort to protect shippers from unclear pricing strategies, forwarders say. The move is likely to raise costs for forwarders and carriers as they devote more resources to ensure compliance with rate filing procedures. And it could hasten a wider shakeup in China's logistics sector, with increased consolidation and the demise of smaller, less-compliant operators, the forwarders said. The crackdown by Chinese authorities comes after nine carriers and seven non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) received fines or warning letters after Transport Ministry officials found discrepancies in rate data filed for international shipments at three gateway ports late last year. “Since the government has emphasized (that) enterprises must improve internal rate filing work systems and institutionalize accountability, with responsibility assigned to specific personnel, it may cost more for internal compliance costs, (and) force both large shipping lines and smaller forwarders to be more transparent," Cliff Xu, regional director of Greater China for the forwarder Rhenus Air & Ocean, told the Journal of Commerce. “This would reduce the ability of non-compliant operators to undercut compliant competitors through opaque pricing strategies,” he added. “This may accelerate industry consolidation, with smaller and less-compliant operators struggling to survive.” Inspections last year focused on Guangzhou, Ningbo, and Qingdao. “We anticipate further expansion nationwide,” Xu said. “The logical next steps would include other major trade gateways such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Tianjin in future enforcement rounds. “The government has explicitly stated that it will increase the intensity of inspections on enterprises regarding the implementation of filed freight rates, and that both the central ministry and its authorized provincial transportation authorities will carry out these enforcement actions,” Xu added. Ocean Network Express (ONE), Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Evergreen Marine (Asia), and Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) were among the carriers that received "administrative punishment" following the inspections between August and November last year. ONE said it was penalized due to a “filing inaccuracy in mid-2025.” “ONE has since addressed the relevant findings through appropriate follow-up and corrective actions,” a spokesperson for the carrier told the Journal of Commerce, not providing further details. “Our current operations remain unaffected, and we remain committed to full regulatory compliance.” Hapag-Lloyd declined to comment. “Please understand that we cannot comment on ongoing proceedings as a general matter,” a spokesperson for the carrier said. The seven forwarders that received “administrative punishment,” which can also include license suspension, include Huilida International Freight Forwarding (Guangzhou), the Qingdao branch of Xuda International Freight Forwarding (Shanghai), and Ningbo Port Southeast Logistics Group, according to a Transport Ministry statement on May 12. ‘Significant increase’ in scrutiny The Transport Ministry made it mandatory for carriers and forwarders to file rate data and information to the Shanghai Shipping Exchange, as the ministry’s agent, in 2013. But forwarder FIBS Logistics said freight rate filing enforcement “was considered a bit of a toothless paper tiger” until 2024 when Shanghai’s municipal transport commission carried out a two-week inspection blitz on freight rate filing procedures. Those checks included copies of bills of lading, freight lists, bank accounts, invoices, and “financial accounting vouchers,” according to the notice issued by the commission shortly before the inspection regime started. It was at that time that FIBS put a dedicated person in charge of the local filings for all China contracts, a spokesperson for the company told the Journal of Commerce. “We have never actually been audited, nor did we really hear much about other forwarders getting audited,” the spokesperson said. “I guess only forwarders who never or just rarely update the filing system will be audited.” Xu from Rhenus Logistics said the company has seen “a significant increase in enforcement and systematic scrutiny” since 2024. “The authorities have moved beyond simple filing mandates to vigorously enforce compliance with filed rates,” he said. “This represents a clear step-change in regulatory oversight. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

China widens regulatory crackdown on filing of ocean transport rate data

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The South Korean electronics conglomerate said it should not be held liable for more than $1 million in charges resulting from container delays that Wan Hai-contracted truckers experienced between 2020 and 2022.</div>

The South Korean electronics conglomerate said it should not be held liable for more than $1 million in charges resulting from container delays that Wan Hai-contracted truckers experienced between 2020 and 2022.

<div class="phx-topic">Samsung Electronics has filed a complaint with US shipping regulators over more than $1 million in fees Wan Hai charged the conglomerate on delayed container pickups under the ocean carrier’s control, marking Samsung’s latest salvo against ocean carriers over pandemic-era delays and resulting financial penalties. Samsung’s complaint, reported Monday by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), alleged that Taiwan’s Wan Hai Lines violated US shipping law by charging demurrage and detention (D&amp;D) on hundreds of containers between 2020 and 2022 where Wan Hai was responsible for the inland move under carrier haulage, or so-called “store door” terms. “In store door shipments, costs and charges relating to delays in the timely removal of containers from terminals (generally known as “demurrage” charges) should be borne by Wan Hai, not a consignee,” Samsung’s complaint said. In addition to $1.2 million in direct charges, Samsung said it also bore other costs related to the transportation of its containers. It is asking the FMC to determine what restitution will be appropriate. Samsung, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/journal-of-commerce-top-100-us-importers-and-exporters-in-2025-6210438">the 15th-largest US importer by volume</a>, has filed five other FMC complaints against ocean carriers, including <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-complaint-from-samsung-is-latest-salvo-against-cosco-for-dd-billing-5199869">Cosco Shipping</a>, Orient Overseas Container Line, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/samsung-fmc-complaint-alleges-thousands-of-inaccurate-fees-assessed-by-hmm-5244232">HMM</a>, Zim Shipping and SM Line, over container late fees charged during the pandemic. So far, only the complaint against Zim <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-judge-awards-samsung-37-million-from-zim-in-billing-dispute-5990789">resulted in damages being awarded to Samsung</a>, with the other cases expected to be decided later in 2026 and 2027. Similar to its other complaints, Samsung alleged that Wan Hai began “repeatedly failing” to deliver Samsung’s containers from marine terminals in a timely manner in 2021 “due to chassis shortages and heavy terminal congestion.” Despite those matters being outside of Samsung’s control, the company alleged Wan Hai would charge Samsung demurrage on over 550 delayed container retrievals and detention on over 150 container returns. Samsung also claimed it faced over 800 other instances of associated charges due to the delays. Samsung’s complaint said Wan Hai’s late charges contradict the FMC’s “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stakeholders-say-us-cargo-flow-would-be-undermined-by-proposed-fmc-billing-rule-5245716">incentive principle</a>,” which justifies such charges for prompting the timely removal of containers from terminals. Samsung said the container moves were totally under the control of Wan Hai and that the carrier continued to accept Samsung’s containers even though it could not promptly move them to Samsung warehouses. “Wan Hai’s foregoing practices and procedures related to the assessment of demurrage and detention charges are unjust and unreasonable as applied because they did not serve their intended primary purpose to incentivize freight fluidity,” the complaint said. Wan Hai did not respond to a request for comment. <h3>‘Beat you up on rates’ </h3>The president of a New Jersey-based motor carrier told the Journal of Commerce his general experience with carrier haulage moves through ocean carriers has been fraught. While his company, which has over just over 40 trucks, will occasionally handle store door moves if the shipper asks for a specific motor carrier, contracting haulage directly from an ocean carrier usually means very short notice of when a container will reach a port, usually four or five days in advance. That leaves motor carriers less time to allocate drivers and chassis. The source’s direct shipper customers, though, will provide ongoing forecasts of how many containers to expect and when, so planning goes more smoothly. While ocean carriers will generally provide a no-cost chassis to a shipper for a store door move, motor carriers are still typically forced to use a chassis pool rather than their own chassis. “The ocean carriers can promise you a lot of business because they have the customer relationship, but they can beat you up on rates,” the source said.  Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Samsung Electronics has filed a complaint with US shipping regulators over more than $1 million in fees Wan Hai charged the conglomerate on delayed container pickups under the ocean carrier’s control, marking Samsung’s latest salvo against ocean carriers over pandemic-era delays and resulting financial penalties. Samsung’s complaint, reported Monday by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), alleged that Taiwan’s Wan Hai Lines violated US shipping law by charging demurrage and detention (D&D) on hundreds of containers between 2020 and 2022 where Wan Hai was responsible for the inland move under carrier haulage, or so-called “store door” terms. “In store door shipments, costs and charges relating to delays in the timely removal of containers from terminals (generally known as “demurrage” charges) should be borne by Wan Hai, not a consignee,” Samsung’s complaint said. In addition to $1.2 million in direct charges, Samsung said it also bore other costs related to the transportation of its containers. It is asking the FMC to determine what restitution will be appropriate. Samsung, the 15th-largest US importer by volume , has filed five other FMC complaints against ocean carriers, including Cosco Shipping , Orient Overseas Container Line, HMM , Zim Shipping and SM Line, over container late fees charged during the pandemic. So far, only the complaint against Zim resulted in damages being awarded to Samsung , with the other cases expected to be decided later in 2026 and 2027. Similar to its other complaints, Samsung alleged that Wan Hai began “repeatedly failing” to deliver Samsung’s containers from marine terminals in a timely manner in 2021 “due to chassis shortages and heavy terminal congestion.” Despite those matters being outside of Samsung’s control, the company alleged Wan Hai would charge Samsung demurrage on over 550 delayed container retrievals and detention on over 150 container returns. Samsung also claimed it faced over 800 other instances of associated charges due to the delays. Samsung’s complaint said Wan Hai’s late charges contradict the FMC’s “ incentive principle ,” which justifies such charges for prompting the timely removal of containers from terminals. Samsung said the container moves were totally under the control of Wan Hai and that the carrier continued to accept Samsung’s containers even though it could not promptly move them to Samsung warehouses. “Wan Hai’s foregoing practices and procedures related to the assessment of demurrage and detention charges are unjust and unreasonable as applied because they did not serve their intended primary purpose to incentivize freight fluidity,” the complaint said. Wan Hai did not respond to a request for comment. ‘Beat you up on rates’ The president of a New Jersey-based motor carrier told the Journal of Commerce his general experience with carrier haulage moves through ocean carriers has been fraught. While his company, which has over just over 40 trucks, will occasionally handle store door moves if the shipper asks for a specific motor carrier, contracting haulage directly from an ocean carrier usually means very short notice of when a container will reach a port, usually four or five days in advance. That leaves motor carriers less time to allocate drivers and chassis. The source’s direct shipper customers, though, will provide ongoing forecasts of how many containers to expect and when, so planning goes more smoothly. While ocean carriers will generally provide a no-cost chassis to a shipper for a store door move, motor carriers are still typically forced to use a chassis pool rather than their own chassis. “The ocean carriers can promise you a lot of business because they have the customer relationship, but they can beat you up on rates,” the source said.  Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Marine terminals

Samsung levels D&D complaint against Wan Hai with FMC

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Costs rose sharply following the start of the war, and although emergency fuel surcharges were quickly levied on spot shipments, cargo under contract was locked into quarterly BAFs.</div>

Costs rose sharply following the start of the war, and although emergency fuel surcharges were quickly levied on spot shipments, cargo under contract was locked into quarterly BAFs.

<div class="phx-topic">Fuel prices that rocketed higher since the war with Iran began on Feb. 28 have so far added $5.5 billion to the bunker costs of container lines, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. Ocean carriers have rolled out emergency fuel surcharges in an urgent bid to recover that increase in operating costs, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">estimated at up to $50 million a week by Hapag-Lloyd</a>. “It is clear that if the (Strait of) Hormuz crisis persists, and hence fuel prices remain elevated, the industry would become clearly loss-making, unless the added fuel costs translate into higher freight rates,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence, wrote in his weekly Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “Spot rates have indeed been on the rise these past couple of weeks, especially on the Asia-Europe trade, implying that the process of passing on the added fuel costs is under way,” Murphy added. Bunker costs rose sharply following the start of the war, and although emergency fuel surcharges were quickly levied on spot shipments, cargo under contract was locked into quarterly bunker adjustment factors (BAFs). <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/demand-rising-on-asia-europe-ocean-trade-as-july-bunker-hike-looms-6225813">Those costs will be passed on to shippers in the third quarter</a> beginning July 1. Murphy put the scale of the additional fuel costs for the three-month period through May in context, noting that the first-quarter financial results for 2026 implied combined industry-wide revenue of $61 billion and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $2.7 billion. <h3>Peace prospects spark oil price drop</h3>While oil prices have fallen to a two-week low amid hopes that Washington and Tehran were close to a peace deal, the fragility of the current ceasefire was illustrated Monday by renewed US strikes and return fire from Iranian positions. Very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) was trading at $782 per metric ton (mt) Monday, down 11% since a mid-May high, according to Ship &amp; Bunker. High-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) is trading at a substantial discount to VLSFO at $628/mt, down 13% since mid-May. To arrive at a daily added fuel cost per-container for the industry from the Middle East war, Sea-Intelligence used an estimated fuel use of 70 million tons per year, with 47.2 million TEUs shipped in the first three months of 2026, according to Container Trades Statistics (CTS). “The CTS data period is not quite the same as the fuel premium period,” Murphy acknowledged. “However, as a ballpark estimate, this implies an added fuel cost on average of $117/TEU.” Whether a vessel was equipped with an exhaust scrubber or not would also influence the cost per container. “Vessels equipped with a scrubber can use the lower-priced (HSFO), whereas vessels without a scrubber need to purchase the more expensive VLSFO,” Murphy said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Fuel prices that rocketed higher since the war with Iran began on Feb. 28 have so far added $5.5 billion to the bunker costs of container lines, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. Ocean carriers have rolled out emergency fuel surcharges in an urgent bid to recover that increase in operating costs, estimated at up to $50 million a week by Hapag-Lloyd . “It is clear that if the (Strait of) Hormuz crisis persists, and hence fuel prices remain elevated, the industry would become clearly loss-making, unless the added fuel costs translate into higher freight rates,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence, wrote in his weekly Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “Spot rates have indeed been on the rise these past couple of weeks, especially on the Asia-Europe trade, implying that the process of passing on the added fuel costs is under way,” Murphy added. Bunker costs rose sharply following the start of the war, and although emergency fuel surcharges were quickly levied on spot shipments, cargo under contract was locked into quarterly bunker adjustment factors (BAFs). Those costs will be passed on to shippers in the third quarter beginning July 1. Murphy put the scale of the additional fuel costs for the three-month period through May in context, noting that the first-quarter financial results for 2026 implied combined industry-wide revenue of $61 billion and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $2.7 billion. Peace prospects spark oil price drop While oil prices have fallen to a two-week low amid hopes that Washington and Tehran were close to a peace deal, the fragility of the current ceasefire was illustrated Monday by renewed US strikes and return fire from Iranian positions. Very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) was trading at $782 per metric ton (mt) Monday, down 11% since a mid-May high, according to Ship & Bunker. High-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) is trading at a substantial discount to VLSFO at $628/mt, down 13% since mid-May. To arrive at a daily added fuel cost per-container for the industry from the Middle East war, Sea-Intelligence used an estimated fuel use of 70 million tons per year, with 47.2 million TEUs shipped in the first three months of 2026, according to Container Trades Statistics (CTS). “The CTS data period is not quite the same as the fuel premium period,” Murphy acknowledged. “However, as a ballpark estimate, this implies an added fuel cost on average of $117/TEU.” Whether a vessel was equipped with an exhaust scrubber or not would also influence the cost per container. “Vessels equipped with a scrubber can use the lower-priced (HSFO), whereas vessels without a scrubber need to purchase the more expensive VLSFO,” Murphy said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Middle East war adds $5.5 billion to ocean carriers' bunker costs: Sea-Intelligence

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Subscribe Today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Subscribe and Save: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

FMC collects civil penalty from Maersk on detention bills

Early-stage tech fund targets maritime industry with $200 million

China widens regulatory crackdown on filing of ocean transport rate data